Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL

Hmmmm, that is not mentioned here? I thought it would be. Should we add it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Could certainly go into 'Surmountable problems'? Valereee (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee Agreed. Can you add it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"We'd rather not have an article on us"?

Has there ever been consideration for inclusion of the argument, "We'd rather not have an article on us" or "I'd rather not have an article on me" as an invalid reason for deletion? This feels different from "I don't like it" or "They don't like it", but I can't point to a place where this sentiment is addressed. I've seen deletion discussions where the subject didn't want the article to exist but the article was kept anyway (because notable). I know there is the concept of WP:BLP which allows some leeway for a person to ask us not to host an article on them (sometimes) but WP:BLPGROUP suggests that this same courtesy does not extend to groups, esp large groups. A loose necktie (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for the rules on this and at first all I could find werefailed proposals from 17 years ago: Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion (proposing it as a type of speedy deletion) and in Notability (people) Archive 5. It which surprised me to find that they both failed and I cannot find a discussion after, since definitely the argument is used often (and often successfully) in AfDs for at least the past decade or so. My sense is that consensus has changed on this since 2007 and that borderline-notable people who request deletion often get their wishes respected -- in fact such an outcome is discussed in WP:BLPDEL: "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion" but even there it's just a wave at a guideline rather than a given rule. All in all, it doesn't seem to be fixed enough nor have enough consensus to go (either way) on this page.

As far as groups go: I think that the BLP article stating that it's a "case-by-case basis" whether BLP can apply to a group stands here. If the article were about two sisters (who, say, own a marginally notable store or have a marginally notable band) and they both wrote in asking for the article to be deleted, that sounds to me like BLP would apply. If it's about the United Auto Workers and the request came from its president, that does not sound like anything BLP should get involved with. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Change Example of OR in VAGUEWAVE

I decided to be bold and changed the example of a good Original Research argument in the "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" (VAGUEWAVE) section. Before it was (emphasis added)

Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

I did not feel that this was a great example of a "more detailed summary" as much as the definition of what "original research" is. Changed to "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation". I think in order to give a sense of what a detailed argument would be, we need to get concrete with a hypothetical detail from a hypothetical article rather than leaving it in the miasma of generalities that we are suggesting people avoid. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Merging articles

This:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable.

feels incomplete to me. It's true that not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable, but it's also true that it sometimes makes more sense to have a single article on Bob's Business, Inc., which mostly says that it manufactures blue-green widgets, or about Blue-green widgets, which includes information about the manufacturer, than to have multiple separate articles on the notable Blue-green widget 1, Blue-green widget 2, Blue-green widget 3, and Blue-green widget 5 (version 4 being non-notable), plus yet another article for Bob, the founder and CEO.

What we don't want is:

• An article about the notable product plus another article about the not-so-notable manufacturer
• An article about the notable person plus another article about the not-so-notable organization

but it's good to have:

• A single article about the manufacturer and its notable products
• A single article about a notable person and their organization

I don't think this is clear. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAGEDECIDE et al. seem the proximate P&Gs. I think it's very clear we can distil what is said there into Even if a subject is notable enough to have its own article, it can still be better to discuss it as one part of an article covering a broader scope. Readers often benefit when related information is organized into a single, more comprehensive resource instead of being split between several smaller articles—with each potentially being less effective at providing necessary context in isolation.

Hopefully that's a start, and not overly clunky as to have to rewrite it from scratch. Remsense ‥ 论 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)